I Spit on Your Grave

Name: I Spit on Your Grave
Genre: Thriller, Horror
Released: November 22, 1978
Duration: 101 min
Rating: 19
Cast: Alexis Magnotti, Anthony Nichols, Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor, Gunter Kleemann

1978

METASCORE

Overwhelming dislike based on 6 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 22 Ratings

See All

6.4

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.4	Your Score
6.4	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 22 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

I Spit On Your Grave

Now Playing: I Spit On Your Grave

Movie Details & Credits

Cinemagic | Release Date: November 22, 1978 | R

Starring: Alexis Magnotti, Anthony Nichols, Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor, Gunter Kleemann, Richard Pace, Tammy Zarchi, Terry Zarchi, Traci Ferrante, William Tasgal

Summary: An aspiring writer is repeatedly gang-raped, humiliated, and left for dead by four men whom she systematically hunts down to seek revenge.

Director: Meir Zarchi

Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

Rating: R

Runtime: 101 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Glenn Heath Jr.

One can’t mistake I Spit in Your Grave for anything other than a raging political text, a rigorous reminder to the power of a disturbed imagination, be it victimizer or victim. Read full review

R.L. Shaffer

Admittedly, I Spit on Your Grave is a gruesome, deplorable little exploitation picture that, on the surface, seems to enjoy it's rape sequences just as much, if not more, than the vengeance-filled finale. But on a more subtle level, the film is a surprisingly well-executed revenge story that plays like a brutally raw nerve – a terrifyingly stark view of the real horror of rape, painted by bizarre, skewed cinematography, gory violence, and a keen sense of creeping atmosphere and dread. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine Staff (Not Credited)

Director Meir Zarchi may have been trying to make a point about the horrors of rape, brutality, revenge, and reprisal, but he simply isn't a good enough director to extract any relevance or nuance from his exploitative material. Watch Wes Craven's Last House On The Left instead. Read full review

Empire Mark Dinning

Really, really bad. It's not good on any level. Not a good horror, not a good revenge flick, it's poorly constructed and has absolutely nothing to say or offer. Utter shit. Read full review

Gene Siskel

A hideously violent shocker about a woman who is repeatedly raped and castrates her victims. [18 July 1980, p.8]

Roger Ebert

It is a movie so sick, reprehensible and contemptible that I can hardly believe it's playing in respectable theaters. But it is. Attending it was one of the most depressing experiences of, my life. Read full review

SEE ALL 6 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

OtavioDepressiv

Sep 21, 2020

it is a film made especially to shock, so either you accept his criticism of violence against women and cruel demonstration of this world or you will see it as a show that glorifies rape which is not the main message, but in the right context it is a good movie

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

akshatmahajan

Jan 21, 2021

This movie is one of the most controversial movie ever released during 1980s, thanks to a lot of adult scenes (naked, rape, blood). Well, half of the movie showed actress getting raped and tortured which was disturbing. The director did an excellent job of portraying the true horror of rape.This movie is one of the most controversial movie ever released during 1980s, thanks to a lot of adult scenes (naked, rape, blood). Well, half of the movie showed actress getting raped and tortured which was disturbing. The director did an excellent job of portraying the true horror of rape. Movie nicely portrayed what a person can become after horrific events happen with him/her (becoming quiet, no emotions, feeling of hatred & revenge). The film-making for a first time director was very well done and for the most part the acting was up to par. Maximum people give this movie negative review due to adult scenes & simple story, so don't believe them and see this movie for yourself.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

robertoiglesias

Sep 29, 2017

Me watching this when I was 12:
What a big wreck! This is the worst and stupidest movie of the 70's and every part of it SUCKS! Getting revenge on a gang of idiots by killing them is just plain bad.

Me watching this when I'm older:
It's actually a pretty good flick.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

sniddle

Aug 3, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have avoided this movie for a long time, but I finally bit the bullet and I do not regret it. The the main gripe i have with this film is the rape scene. The scene is drawn out for about 30 minutes, and it drags. I understand the inclusion of it is crucial, as it is the main motivation of our main character's killing spree, but I would have appreciated if her killing spree lasted as long or longer in comparison. That being said, I really enjoyed the film. After a horrible attack, main character Jennifer is able to reclaim her body and use it to lure her attackers to their deaths, which is so satisfying to watch.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

FilipeNeto

Oct 9, 2020

This film has been around for a few decades but it has not become a classic, perhaps, because it's as shocking as it is. In fact, the film is quite difficult to watch and totally inadvisable for children, young teenagers or even more impressionable adults!

The film's theme is the rape of aThis film has been around for a few decades but it has not become a classic, perhaps, because it's as shocking as it is. In fact, the film is quite difficult to watch and totally inadvisable for children, young teenagers or even more impressionable adults!

The film's theme is the rape of a young woman on vacation in a rural place, as well as her revenge on whoever raped her. It seems to me to be very much in line with the thinking and fashions of the Seventies, fertile in films with nudity and sexuality related themes. But this nudity wasn't meant to excite or look sexy: is brutal. The film has a long (the longest ever in a regular movie) rape sequence in which four men, one after the other, rape, insult and brutalize that young girl until she is unable to walk or to stand. Finally, they have the idea of killing her, but the guy who should have done it was not able to actually do it, and pretended to commit the crime.

Controversial, the film was so harsh that even when it went to the theaters it received harsh criticism and some boycotts, even being withdrawn from theaters. However, it worked out in its purpose: it shows in a harsh way the effects of a rape from the victim's perspective, and we can feel sorry for her and pity for the situation she is in. The worst, however, is the way these guys died in the film: their deaths never sound credible and it is perfectly clear that it is all pretending.

From the cast, I don't think it's worth talking. Being a brutal film and made on a very low budget, it used unknown actors. But I liked the performance of Camille Keaton, I think she was very faithful to the character and gives her a very pleasant dose of verisimilitude and realism. I also liked the work of Richard Pace, who gave life to the most human of aggressors, a mentally retarded person influenced by all the others.

Technically, its a film that does not stand out nor has much to present. Not having a high budget, it used what it had. There is a lot of fake blood, vivid and so bright that you can tell from the distance that its fake. The makeup work was very well done, with a very well-designed scar on the actress's face and all the dirt and blood on the bodies to be very realistic. The film intentionally chooses not to use a soundtrack with the exception of some opera notes. Cinematography does not stand out, nor do the sets and costumes, where the cast's frontal nudity is recurrent and ordinary. I liked, however, the way the lead actress changes her clothing after being attacked: if she used to like wearing few light clothes, there is much more fabric after the rape, with the church scenes standing out, portraying her almost totally covered in what would have been, according to the story, a very hot Summer. Psychological consequences of the attack?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

tay2

Jul 23, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film has been around for a few decades but it has not become a classic, perhaps, because it's as shocking as it is. In fact, the film is quite difficult to watch and totally inadvisable for children, young teenagers or even more impressionable adults!

The film's theme is the rape of a young woman on vacation in a rural place, as well as her revenge on whoever raped her. It seems to me to be very much in line with the thinking and fashions of the Seventies, fertile in films with nudity and sexuality related themes. But this nudity wasn't meant to excite or look sexy: is brutal. The film has a long (the longest ever in a regular movie) rape sequence in which four men, one after the other, rape, insult and brutalize that young girl until she is unable to walk or to stand. Finally, they have the idea of killing her, but the guy who should have done it was not able to actually do it, and pretended to commit the crime.

Controversial, the film was so harsh that even when it went to the theaters it received harsh criticism and some boycotts, even being withdrawn from theaters. However, it worked out in its purpose: it shows in a harsh way the effects of a rape from the victim's perspective, and we can feel sorry for her and pity for the situation she is in. The worst, however, is the way these guys died in the film: their deaths never sound credible and it is perfectly clear that it is all pretending.

From the cast, I don't think it's worth talking. Being a brutal film and made on a very low budget, it used unknown actors. But I liked the performance of Camille Keaton, I think she was very faithful to the character and gives her a very pleasant dose of verisimilitude and realism. I also liked the work of Richard Pace, who gave life to the most human of aggressors, a mentally retarded person influenced by all the others.

Technically, its a film that does not stand out nor has much to present. Not having a high budget, it used what it had. There is a lot of fake blood, vivid and so bright that you can tell from the distance that its fake. The makeup work was very well done, with a very well-designed scar on the actress's face and all the dirt and blood on the bodies to be very realistic. The film intentionally chooses not to use a soundtrack with the exception of some opera notes. Cinematography does not stand out, nor do the sets and costumes, where the cast's frontal nudity is recurrent and ordinary. I liked, however, the way the lead actress changes her clothing after being attacked: if she used to like wearing few light clothes, there is much more fabric after the rape, with the church scenes standing out, portraying her almost totally covered in what would have been, according to the story, a very hot Summer. Psychological consequences of the attack?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Broyax

Jul 15, 2020

Les intentions sont louables, justifiées et le féminisme revendiqué de cette vengeance pour le moins brutale (ou plutôt ces vengeances...) est lui aussi tout-à-fait justifié : si on faisait ça à quelques violeurs -au moins à titre d'exemples...- ça en ferait réfléchir plus d'un, je supposeLes intentions sont louables, justifiées et le féminisme revendiqué de cette vengeance pour le moins brutale (ou plutôt ces vengeances...) est lui aussi tout-à-fait justifié : si on faisait ça à quelques violeurs -au moins à titre d'exemples...- ça en ferait réfléchir plus d'un, je suppose !

Malheureusement, cette "justice sauvage" est fort mal présentée, je veux dire en cela qu'elle n'est pas crédible une seconde et qu'elle nous prend carrément pour des jambons, à moins que ce ne soit le fruit d'un scénariste stagiaire complètement à côté de ses pompes ou une sorte de plaisanterie qui a tourné au ridicule...!

Secondement, l'affiche n'est pas représentative ou comment dit-on, pas contractuelle... c'est sans doute une remarque de macho (ou carrément de pervers, tant pis si les féminazies me sautent dessus avec leurs paires de ciseaux) mais ce beau cul sur l'affiche, ce magnifique cul, on ne le voit pas dans le putain de film ! alors où est-il passé, je ne sais pas... toujours est-il que la jolie jambonneuse légitimement vindicative, bien que très jolie (je l'ai déjà dit une fois, attention au harcèlement, merde) a les fesses désespérément plates ; alors, remboursement ou bon d'achat...?

Bon je sais, le sujet est grave (et sérieux) mais le film n'en reste pas moins presque totalement... raté. Très plat, on n'y ressent rien, tous les comédiens sont universellement mauvais, la mise en scène est lente et apathique et les vengeances (invraisemblables) sont vite expédiées tout à la fin... je mets 2 quand même. Pour l'affiche.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

SEE ALL 7 REVIEWS